No reason to be shocked...just get informed.It seemed shocking in 2020 when the GOP literally declared it had no platform for the election
And nothing had changed, no new developments in the world in the four years? Face it, this is an exaggeration, but it brought to mind Germans personal oath of loyalty to old Adolf, which of course is what Trump demands. A more benign explanation might be "L'etat, c'est moi... ou c'est Trump." But a good "why bother" explanation came from one republican, who said that Trump at some point would probably contradict whatever was the party's platform.No reason to be shocked...just get informed.
The GOP did NOT declare it had no agenda for 2020. It declared that the 2016 agenda...AKA Trump's agenda...was still in effect.
The rest of your post is irrelevant because it is based on your ignorance.
It seemed shocking in 2020 when the GOP literally declared it had no platform for the election (while Democrats continue to promulgate agendas with staggering amounts of eye-straining minutiae). But, it should not actually have been a surprise. As has been commented on in numerous articles, television programs, and on these forums, the Republican party has not had a "policy agenda" for decades, and even now just opposes anything promoted by Democrats even when they originally suggested it.
This would seem to be electoral suicide, and, indeed, "Republican senators have not represented a majority of the population since 1999, yet, from 2003 to 2007 and again from 2015 to 2021, Republicans had a majority of members of the Senate itself." Why The Republican Party Isn’t Concerned With Popularity (538). With the exception of 2004, Republican presidential candidates have not won the popular vote this century, and before that the last time was 1988, when George Bush, Sr. won 53% of the vote. His son, on his second try, only got 50.7% - the best showing by the GOP since 1988.
How is this possible? Why hasn't the party heeded the advice of it's own 2012 "autopsy" to be more inclusive? How has it continued to have power while opposing extremely popular policies? And how is it that historically unqualified and unpopular candidates continue to be nominated and elected?
That is what this thread is intended to explore.
The only thing that has changed is the damage the Biden pukes have done in less than two years. That may take an entire term or two to correct.And nothing had changed, no new developments in the world in the four years?
Shrug...so the agenda is for Trump Traitors to conduct another insurrection?No reason to be shocked...just get informed.
The GOP did NOT declare it had no agenda for 2020. It declared that the 2016 agenda...AKA Trump's agenda...was still in effect.
The rest of your post is irrelevant because it is based on your ignorance.
It is because they have generally enjoyed the backing of the super-rich, and there is tons of money to be made as a Republican Party mouthpiece as a talk pundit.It seemed shocking in 2020 when the GOP literally declared it had no platform for the election (while Democrats continue to promulgate agendas with staggering amounts of eye-straining minutiae). But, it should not actually have been a surprise. As has been commented on in numerous articles, television programs, and on these forums, the Republican party has not had a "policy agenda" for decades, and even now just opposes anything promoted by Democrats even when they originally suggested it.
This would seem to be electoral suicide, and, indeed, "Republican senators have not represented a majority of the population since 1999, yet, from 2003 to 2007 and again from 2015 to 2021, Republicans had a majority of members of the Senate itself." Why The Republican Party Isn’t Concerned With Popularity (538). With the exception of 2004, Republican presidential candidates have not won the popular vote this century, and before that the last time was 1988, when George Bush, Sr. won 53% of the vote. His son, on his second try, only got 50.7% - the best showing by the GOP since 1988.
How is this possible? Why hasn't the party heeded the advice of it's own 2012 "autopsy" to be more inclusive? How has it continued to have power while opposing extremely popular policies? And how is it that historically unqualified and unpopular candidates continue to be nominated and elected?
That is what this thread is intended to explore.
Thirty years of intensive conditioning by conservative media is how and why they got to be this way.It seemed shocking in 2020 when the GOP literally declared it had no platform for the election (while Democrats continue to promulgate agendas with staggering amounts of eye-straining minutiae). But, it should not actually have been a surprise. As has been commented on in numerous articles, television programs, and on these forums, the Republican party has not had a "policy agenda" for decades, and even now just opposes anything promoted by Democrats even when they originally suggested it.
This would seem to be electoral suicide, and, indeed, "Republican senators have not represented a majority of the population since 1999, yet, from 2003 to 2007 and again from 2015 to 2021, Republicans had a majority of members of the Senate itself." Why The Republican Party Isn’t Concerned With Popularity (538). With the exception of 2004, Republican presidential candidates have not won the popular vote this century, and before that the last time was 1988, when George Bush, Sr. won 53% of the vote. His son, on his second try, only got 50.7% - the best showing by the GOP since 1988.
How is this possible? Why hasn't the party heeded the advice of it's own 2012 "autopsy" to be more inclusive? How has it continued to have power while opposing extremely popular policies? And how is it that historically unqualified and unpopular candidates continue to be nominated and elected?
That is what this thread is intended to explore.
And the other reason they do not reveal their political agenda is that it is not popular with the majority of voters. Economically it is the same as under GW Bush..coddle the wealthy and big corporations for donations.It is because they have generally enjoyed the backing of the super-rich, and there is tons of money to be made as a Republican Party mouthpiece as a talk pundit.
I have often observed that Republicans always win the PR battle because Democrats stick to the facts, are limited by them, depend on well informed voters (of which there are a minority; ) but Republicans are unlimited in their arguments by the facts, only by their imagination. They don't need facts to gather up votes using emotion and dirty politics.
Instead of arguing issues, they simply argue how bad Democrats are, or they make up nonsense about Democrats or perceived 'outrages.' Think: CRT. A theory to use government systemic policy to address racism, which got turned into "If you're white you are automatically a racist" by Tucker Carlson.
Here, I think, is something that addresses the central issue in the thread. Is it because they have "achieved their agenda"? Is the agenda to not have any check on their authority?They have rigged the system so much. NOw they have stacked the courts they know will rule in thier favor.
Thirty years of intensive conditioning by conservative media is how and why they got to be this way.
And that all started in response to the fallout from Nixon. The party fell out of favor and couldn’t win elections. So Gingrich came along with the plan to baldly manipulate their voters and Fox and talk radio was the vector.
Now we just have folks on the right who only do as they were conditioned to: believe everything their media tells them and reject out of hand any other information as it is all lies.
And the other reason they do not reveal their political agenda is that it is not popular with the majority of voters. Economically it is the same as under GW Bush..coddle the wealthy and big corporations for donations.
Jennifer Rubin, in a recent piece in the Washington Post, The GOP is paying the price for Trump’s loopy Senate candidates, argues
- Both parties have grown more ideologically cohesive. There are now only about two dozen moderate Democrats and Republicans left on Capitol Hill, versus more than 160 in 1971-72.
- Both parties have moved further away from the ideological center since the early 1970s. Democrats on average have become somewhat more liberal, while Republicans on average have become much more conservative.
- The geographic and demographic makeup of both congressional parties has changed dramatically. Nearly half of House Republicans now come from Southern states, while nearly half of House Democrats are Black, Hispanic or Asian/Pacific Islander.
I am not yet convinced that the lesson has been learned. At the same time, she notes,Republicans have nominated a host of unqualified, extreme and loopy Senate candidates for the midterms. The party is now paying the price.
The New York Times reports on the latest indication that the party is facing fundraising woes: “The National Republican Senatorial Committee has cut more than $5 million in Pennsylvania, including its reservations in the Philadelphia media market, according to two media-tracking sources.” It also cut more than $2 million in Wisconsin and about $2 million in the biggest media markets in Arizona.
It will be interesting to see what the 2022 elections show. Of the 10 House Republicans who voted for impeachment, for example, only two are still candidates for their offices. Is this going to be continuation of the trend, or will the radicalism of the current crop of candidate start a reversal of fortunes for the party?In Ohio, for example, the party continues to boost J.D. Vance even though his campaign is struggling (Vance’s recent suggestion that women in violent marriages should not seek a divorce certainly did not help). Republicans also haven’t diverted funds from Herschel Walker in Georgia, although he might be one of the worst Senate candidates this cycle, thanks to a his nonstop stream of fabrications, cringe-inducing incoherence and radical positions, such as his support for a nationwide abortion ban without any exceptions.
Lol, no, they said they didn't have an agenda with the exception of "whatever tRump says".No reason to be shocked...just get informed.
The GOP did NOT declare it had no agenda for 2020. It declared that the 2016 agenda...AKA Trump's agenda...was still in effect.
The rest of your post is irrelevant because it is based on your ignorance.
1- But nothing changed between 2016-2020? There was no need for the GOP to outline what it stood for other than Trump?The only thing that has changed is the damage the Biden pukes have done in less than two years. That may take an entire term or two to correct.
Correct.1- But nothing changed between 2016-2020? There was no need for the GOP to outline what it stood for other than Trump?
LOL!!2- list the damage done by Biden. What I noticed was we just got a new bill on climate and lowering Rx prices among other good things, he got an infrastructure bill that Trump couldn't, he's honoring our legal commitments to asylum seekers.
LOL Like you call the Jan. 6th insurrection good? You are projecting.Correct.
LOL!!
You call bad things good. Forget it. I can give you the list, but you'll just call them good things.
This is true. Funds win elections, because even outrageous candidates can be prettied up with enough money.It is because they have generally enjoyed the backing of the super-rich, and there is tons of money to be made as a Republican Party mouthpiece as a talk pundit.
I think there is more to it than that, actually, although I don't dispute your observations. The fact is, they are still winning elections, but poll after poll after poll shows they don't represent their constituencies. The Kansas abortion referendum is a good example. Even in deeply red Kansas, when given the chance to vote on the issue the measure was defeated overwhelmingly. Yet, Kansas legislators pushed it vigorously. The same is true in multiple other States.I have often observed that Republicans always win the PR battle because Democrats stick to the facts, are limited by them, depend on well informed voters (of which there are a minority; ) but Republicans are unlimited in their arguments by the facts, only by their imagination. They don't need facts to gather up votes using emotion and dirty politics.
Instead of arguing issues, they simply argue how bad Democrats are, or they make up nonsense about Democrats or perceived 'outrages.' Think: CRT. A theory to use government systemic policy to address racism, which got turned into "If you're white you are automatically a racist" by Tucker Carlson.
Importantly, this small-state bias is not politically neutral. Small states have many policy interests in common that are distinct from those of larger states. For example, these states have less urbanization than larger states, leading to policy differences on transportation (highways vs. mass transportation), gun control, agriculture, energy, criminal justice, and so on. For instance, this Senate tilt likely biases national policy toward building more new highways and having less gun control than if that body provided fair representation.
Opioid epidemic, stronger hurricanes than usual, increased tensions with N Korea, largest mass killings in US history, white nationalist demos, "Jews will not replace us," -- and that was just 2017. Obviously nothing to see here.Correct.
Of course! You are describing political differences. Nothing new. If Biden pushes to increase the minimum wage or to more strictly enforce safety standards in the workplace, for example, republicans will see those things as negative because they "harm" the people they represent, who donate the most to the party, while democrats will see those things as positives for the same reasons.LOL!!
You call bad things good. Forget it. I can give you the list, but you'll just call them good things.
I talked about it in another thread earlier today.. (spooooky..)It seemed shocking in 2020 when the GOP literally declared it had no platform for the election (while Democrats continue to promulgate agendas with staggering amounts of eye-straining minutiae). But, it should not actually have been a surprise. As has been commented on in numerous articles, television programs, and on these forums, the Republican party has not had a "policy agenda" for decades, and even now just opposes anything promoted by Democrats even when they originally suggested it.
This would seem to be electoral suicide, and, indeed, "Republican senators have not represented a majority of the population since 1999, yet, from 2003 to 2007 and again from 2015 to 2021, Republicans had a majority of members of the Senate itself." Why The Republican Party Isn’t Concerned With Popularity (538). With the exception of 2004, Republican presidential candidates have not won the popular vote this century, and before that the last time was 1988, when George Bush, Sr. won 53% of the vote. His son, on his second try, only got 50.7% - the best showing by the GOP since 1988.
How is this possible? Why hasn't the party heeded the advice of it's own 2012 "autopsy" to be more inclusive? How has it continued to have power while opposing extremely popular policies? And how is it that historically unqualified and unpopular candidates continue to be nominated and elected?
That is what this thread is intended to explore.
In what may be a gross oversimplification, let me posit that the two competing tendencies in the GOP are on the one hand, those who noticed the "autopsy" findings, and wanted the party to be more inclusive, perhaps emphasizing conservative cultural positions, which they felt have a appeal in the growing Hispanic communities, and indeed there has been growth there. On the other hand there is the tendency to rely on the grossly undemocratic Senate and the marginally undemocratic Electoral College to maintain power, and the unfortunate recent tendency to make it harder to vote, stimulated by Trump's lies about electoral fraud. The suggested obstructionist politics of Newt Gingrich (he honed the strategy of GOP opposing things it supported when democrats propose them),, and Trump's almost strategic recklessness have served them well.It seemed shocking in 2020 when the GOP literally declared it had no platform for the election (while Democrats continue to promulgate agendas with staggering amounts of eye-straining minutiae). But, it should not actually have been a surprise. As has been commented on in numerous articles, television programs, and on these forums, the Republican party has not had a "policy agenda" for decades, and even now just opposes anything promoted by Democrats even when they originally suggested it.
This would seem to be electoral suicide, and, indeed, "Republican senators have not represented a majority of the population since 1999, yet, from 2003 to 2007 and again from 2015 to 2021, Republicans had a majority of members of the Senate itself." Why The Republican Party Isn’t Concerned With Popularity (538). With the exception of 2004, Republican presidential candidates have not won the popular vote this century, and before that the last time was 1988, when George Bush, Sr. won 53% of the vote. His son, on his second try, only got 50.7% - the best showing by the GOP since 1988.
How is this possible? Why hasn't the party heeded the advice of it's own 2012 "autopsy" to be more inclusive? How has it continued to have power while opposing extremely popular policies? And how is it that historically unqualified and unpopular candidates continue to be nominated and elected?
That is what this thread is intended to explore.
There was no insurrection. There was a riot...and the riot is bad.LOL Like you call the Jan. 6th insurrection good? You are projecting.
None of those things were part of the Trump agenda.Opioid epidemic, stronger hurricanes than usual, increased tensions with N Korea, largest mass killings in US history, white nationalist demos, "Jews will not replace us," -- and that was just 2017. Obviously nothing to see here.
Correct.Of course! You are describing political differences. Nothing new. If Biden pushes to increase the minimum wage or to more strictly enforce safety standards in the workplace, for example, republicans will see those things as negative because they "harm" the people they represent, who donate the most to the party, while democrats will see those things as positives for the same reasons.
There are two very simple answers here.That is what this thread is intended to explore.
Yes.Here, I think, is something that addresses the central issue in the thread. Is it because they have "achieved their agenda"? Is the agenda to not have any check on their authority?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?